16-50 vs 35 prime

Started Dec 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
jafary Forum Member • Posts: 86
Re: 16-50 vs 35 prime

I own both and I posted a comparison at f/5.6 between the two:


Basically what I found is that the 16-50 is really good at this FL. However, the 35mm prime is good from wide open. It's a power house with its sharpness, large aperture and OSS. Coupled with the qualitative high ISO images of the NEX6 (up to 3200), low light shooting is just a breeze and a pleasure. I'm keeping the zoom for its wide angle range, although it's just average there, and because of its size. You can keep the 35mm on camera and the 16-50 in any pocket. You can always get the 16mm, but it's not better than the zoom at 16mm, it's not worth it IMO. I'm still waiting for an affordable and a qualitative wide prime (<16mm) to decide that the 16-50 is no longer needed.

 jafary's gear list:jafary's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow